|• 10-Q • EX-12 • EX-31.1 • EX-31.2 • EX-32.1 • EX-32.2 • XBRL INSTANCE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION SCHEMA DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT • XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT|
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549
x QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2012
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 1-9576
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (567) 336-5000
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x
The number of shares of common stock, par value $.01, of Owens-Illinois, Inc. outstanding as of June 30, 2012 was 165,069,439.
Part I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements.
The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Owens-Illinois, Inc. (the Company) presented herein are unaudited but, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments necessary to present fairly such information for the periods and at the dates indicated. All adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. Because the following unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation S-X, they do not contain all information and footnotes normally contained in annual consolidated financial statements; accordingly, they should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)
See accompanying notes.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Dollars in millions)
See accompanying notes.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS Continued
See accompanying notes.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in millions)
See accompanying notes.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Tabular data dollars in millions, except per share amounts
1. Change in Accounting Method
Effective January 1, 2012, the Company elected to change the method of valuing U.S. inventories to the average cost method, while in prior years these inventories were valued using the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method. The Company believes the average cost method is preferable as it conforms the inventory costing methods globally, improves comparability with industry peers and better reflects the current value of inventory on the consolidated balance sheets. All prior periods presented have been adjusted to apply the new method retrospectively.
There was no effect of the change on the condensed consolidated results of operations for the three months ended June 30, 2011. The effect of the change for the six months ended June 30, 2011 is as follows:
The effect of the change on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011 is as follows:
The effect of the change on the consolidated share owners equity as of January 1, 2011 is as follows:
The effect of the change on the condensed consolidated cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2011 is as follows:
Had the Company not made this change in accounting method, manufacturing, shipping and delivery expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 would have been higher by $7 million and $1 million, respectively, and net earnings attributable to the Company would have been lower by $7 million and $1 million, respectively, than reported in the condensed consolidated results of operations. In addition, both basic and diluted earnings per share would have been lower by $0.04 and $0.01 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, respectively.
2. Earnings Per Share
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:
Options to purchase 2,118,603 and 1,338,432 weighted average shares of common stock which were outstanding during the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the options exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares.
Options to purchase 1,908,925 and 1,147,767 weighted average shares of common stock which were outstanding during the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the options exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares.
The 2015 Exchangeable Notes have a dilutive effect only in those periods in which the Companys average stock price exceeds the exchange price of $47.47 per share. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Companys average stock price did not exceed the exchange price. Therefore, the potentially issuable shares resulting from the settlement of the 2015 Exchangeable Notes were not included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share.
The following table summarizes the long-term debt of the Company:
On May 19, 2011, the Companys subsidiary borrowers entered into the Secured Credit Agreement (the Agreement). At June 30, 2012, the Agreement included a $900 million revolving credit facility, a 170 million Australian dollar term loan, a $600 million term loan, a 116 million Canadian dollar term loan, and a 141 million term loan, each of which has a final maturity date of May 19, 2016. At June 30, 2012, the Companys subsidiary borrowers had unused credit of $807 million available under the Agreement.
The weighted average interest rate on borrowings outstanding under the Agreement at June 30, 2012 was 2.74%.
The Company has a 280 million European accounts receivable securitization program, which extends through September 2016, subject to annual renewal of backup credit lines. Information related to the Companys accounts receivable securitization program is as follows:
The carrying amounts reported for the accounts receivable securitization programs, and certain long-term debt obligations subject to frequently redetermined interest rates, approximate fair value.
Fair values for the Companys significant fixed rate debt obligations are based on published market quotations, and are classified as Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy.
Fair values at June 30, 2012 of the Companys significant fixed rate debt obligations are as follows:
4. Supplemental Cash Flow Information
Cash interest for 2011 includes note repurchase premiums of $16 million related to the second quarter 2011 redemption of the Companys 6.75% senior notes due 2014.
Proceeds from collection of minority partner loan in 2012 represents cash received from one of the Companys noncontrolling partners in South America as repayment of a loan.
5. Share Owners Equity
The activity in share owners equity for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 is as follows:
The activity in share owners equity for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 is as follows:
The acquisition of noncontrolling interests for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 was related to the Company purchasing the noncontrolling interest in its southern Brazil operations.
Major classes of inventory are as follows:
The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Companys former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as asbestos claims).
As of June 30, 2012, the Company has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 4,700 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2011, approximately 71% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 27% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15 million or less, and 2% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages $100 million or greater but less than $122 million.
As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. The Companys experience resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claims merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiffs asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiffs medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents.
In addition to the pending claims set forth above, the Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Companys former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. Some plaintiffs counsel have historically withheld claims under these agreements for later presentation while focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort system. The Company believes that as of June 30, 2012 there are approximately 350 claims against other defendants which are likely to be asserted some time in the future against the Company.
The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the above description of pending matters or in the following description of disposed matters.
Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June 30, 2012, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 388,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,200. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $34 million at June 30, 2012 ($18 million at December 31, 2011) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The Companys asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. As discussed above, a part of the Companys objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in the Companys administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received. These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the Companys per-claim average indemnity payment.
The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability (i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.0 billion through 2011, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. The Companys ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation, and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust but have no present physical asbestos impairment.
The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The material components of the Companys accrued liability are based on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with various plaintiffs counsel; (iii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iv) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the foregoing types of claims.
The significant assumptions underlying the material components of the Companys accrual are:
a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who were exposed to the Companys asbestos-containing insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;
b) the extent to which claims are resolved under the Companys administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those set forth in those agreements;
c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of serious disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases;
d) the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself successfully at trial;
e) the extent to which courts and legislatures eliminate, reduce or permit the diversion of financial resources for unimpaired claimants;
f) the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies;
g) the extent to which bankruptcy trusts direct resources to resolve claims that are also presented to the Company and the timing of the payments made by the bankruptcy trusts; and
h) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial resources and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.
As noted above, the Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in an annual charge.
On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the Company. Of the total nearly $90 million awarded by the jury against the four defendants in the case, almost $10 million in compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants, and $40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the Company.
The Company continues to deny the conspiracy allegations in this case and will vigorously challenge this verdict, if necessary, in the appellate courts, and, therefore, has made no change to its asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2012. While the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, the Company and other conspiracy defendants have successfully challenged jury verdicts in similar cases.
The Companys reported results of operations for 2011 were materially affected by the $165 million fourth quarter charge for asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise materially affect the Companys results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and may continue to affect the Companys cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to pay its obligations for
asbestos-related costs and to fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-term and long-term basis.
Other litigation is pending against the Company, in many cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to the business of the Company and in others presenting allegations that are non-routine and involve compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims as well as other types of relief. The Company records a liability for such matters when it is both probable that the liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Recorded amounts are reviewed and adjusted to reflect changes in the factors upon which the estimates are based including additional information, negotiations, settlements, and other events.
8. Segment Information
The Company has four reportable segments based on its four geographic locations: (1) Europe; (2) North America; (3) South America; (4) Asia Pacific. These four segments are aligned with the Companys internal approach to managing, reporting, and evaluating performance of its global glass operations. Certain assets and activities not directly related to one of the regions or to glass manufacturing are reported with Retained corporate costs and other. These include licensing, equipment manufacturing, global engineering, and non-glass equity investments. Retained corporate costs and other also includes certain headquarters administrative and facilities costs and certain incentive compensation and other benefit plan costs that are global in nature and are not allocable to the reportable segments.
The Companys measure of profit for its reportable segments is Segment Operating Profit, which consists of consolidated earnings from continuing operations before interest income, interest expense, and provision for income taxes and excludes amounts related to certain items that management considers not representative of ongoing operations as well as certain retained corporate costs. The Companys management uses Segment Operating Profit, in combination with net sales and selected cash flow information, to evaluate performance and to allocate resources. Segment Operating Profit for reportable segments includes an allocation of some corporate expenses based on both a percentage of sales and direct billings based on the costs of specific services provided.
In prior periods, pension expense was recorded in each segment related to the pension plans in place in that segment, with the exception of the U.S. pension plans which were recorded in Retained corporate costs and other. Effective January 1, 2012, the Company changed the allocation of pension expense to its reportable segments such that pension expense recorded in each segment relates only to the service cost component of the plans in that segment. The other components of pension expense, including interest cost, expected asset returns and amortization of actuarial losses, are recorded in Retained corporate costs and other. This change in allocation has been applied retrospectively to all periods. Also effective January 1, 2012, the Company elected to change the method of valuing U.S. inventories (see Note 1 for additional information).
There is no impact of the change in accounting method for inventory on Segment Operating Profit for the three months ended June 30, 2011. The impact of the change in pension expense allocation is as follows:
The impact of the changes in pension expense allocation and accounting method for inventory on Segment Operating Profit for the six months ended June 30, 2011 is as follows:
Financial information for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 regarding the Companys reportable segments is as follows: